The Injury Lawyer Blog

Fourteen years ago, Exxon Mobil Corp. was ordered to pay $5 billion in punitive damages for the destruction of beaches and wildlife in Prince William Sound, Alaska. This was then reduced to $2.5 billion in 1994 by a federal appeals court. On Wednesday, June 25^th, this was further reduced to $500 million by the U.S Supreme Court. In a 5-3 decision, Justice David Souter, writing for the court, stated that because the company has already exceeded the $2.5 billion amount in compensation to victims for economic losses, punitive damages have already been paid out. Exxon has asked the high court to throw out the punitive damages claiming it has spent $3.4 billion due to the damages which occurred along 1,200 miles of coast line.

Writing for the dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that it was Congress who chose not to impose restrictions on punitive damages under the circumstances. Also in dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court was "engaging in lawmaking" with their conclusion. She believes the decision should have been left to Congress. Justice Stephen Breyer agreed with her by opposing a one to one ratio of punitive damages to victim compensation.

Justice Samuel Alito took no part in the decision because he owns Exxon stock.

This decision has left many Alaskans affected and in line for compensation in dismay. Under the original award nearly 33,000 would have collected $75,000 each. Now they stand to gain only $15,000 a person. According to Supreme Court lawyer Jeffrey Fisher, Native Alaskans, landowners, businesses, local governments, and commercial fishermen have had "their lives and livelihood destroyed and haven't received a dime of emotional-distress damages."

Revenue and profit margins of Exxon Mobil have surpassed $330 billion a year for the last several years, and is currently the world's richest corporation whose net income was almost $40 billion last year. As other oil companies, Exxon Mobil is under the threat of investigation for price gouging during a time of record gas prices, as well as for funding global warming skeptics while spending less than a percent on researching alternative energy sources.

While the Exxon Valdez was captained by an alcoholic who had five double vodkas the night of the spill, the fact remains that massive oil tankers continue to dump oil into the oceans, polluting the beaches and killing wildlife, which affects many people's livelihood. Because of this, environmental litigation is sure to have some kind of staying power. However, due to the Supreme Court's ruling, potential punitive damage claims may be significantly reduced.

Pennsylvania State Trooper, Samuel Nassan, took the stand on Tuesday to explain his actions in the Christmas Eve 2002 shooting death of a 12-year-old boy named Michael Ellerbe. Nassan claims that he shot Ellerbe, in the back while he was running away from an SUV he had stolen, because Nassan's then-partner, Juan Curry, had just fallen over a fence and accidentally discharged his weapon. Nassan believed Curry had just been shot and responded in kind.

Murder or Accident?

Days after Ellerbe's death, his family called it "murder." Civil rights attorneys for the family agreed, and the NAACP demanded that at least three members of the African-American community be part of the investigation. State police expressed sorrow and remorse, but refused to discuss details of the incident or the investigation. It is known that one shot through the back and into the heart killed Ellerbe; however, an additional wound to his arm seems to show that Ellerbe was grazed by a bullet from a different direction. It isn't known who fired the shot or exactly how he received it. Even the coroners disagree on the particulars of how Ellerbe was killed. Ellerbe's family and attorneys claimed there was a cover-up, especially after the state troopers were absolved of wrongdoing by a jury in January, 2003.

Family Sues for Wrongful Death

Claiming the state police involved never told Ellerbe to stop before firing, and claiming there was a conspiracy, the family sued seeking more than $75,000 for wrongful death. The suit claims that Ellerbe suffered fear and pain prior to his death.

Senior deputy attorney general, Kemal Alexander Mericli, arguing on behalf of the state, claimed in March 2004 that state police "enjoy sovereign immunity from tort lawsuits." He argued the two troopers involved shouldn't have to face civil rights charges in Ellerbe's death. U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti disagreed and allowed the suit to move forward. It is still being argued today.

For a little over five years Michael Ellerbe's family has been struggling with the boy's death. They know who killed him and how he died, but they've been living in limbo with regard to who will ultimately take responsibility. Both Samuel Nassan and Juan Curry have expressed remorse, as have the state police of Pennsylvania, but this has done little to assuage the family, and the community's, anger.

Yes, Michael Ellerbe, a 12-year-old, was behind the wheel of a stolen SUV, and yes, he ran from the police. But things get murky after that. All we have to go on is what the two troopers there have said, and a boy who was ten at the time, who says he saw the whole thing from his upstairs window. Clear answers may never be given. What is clear is that Michael Ellerbe's family, as well as Samuel Nassan and Juan Curry will continue to live with the consequences of that day.

If you live in Pennsylvania, and you believe a loved one has suffered a wrongful death at the hands of the police, please contact an experienced injury lawyer.